legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Walker

P. v. Walker
01:24:2013





P














P. v. >Walker>















Filed 1/17/13 P.
v. Walker CA3











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED







California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits
courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.









IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----






>






THE
PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and
Respondent,



v.



MICHELLE
SOPHIA WALKER,



Defendant and
Appellant.




C070467



(Super. Ct. No. 11F00068)














In
September 2011, defendant Michelle Sophia Walker pled no contest to two counts
of first degree burglary (Pen. Code,
§§ 459, 460, subd. (a))href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] and admitted that she knew each victim was age 65 years or
older (§ 667.9, subd. (a)). In
exchange, 19 related counts were dismissed with a >Harvey waiver.href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] Defendant was sentenced to
prison for four years eight months and was awarded 361 days’ custody
credit and 180 days’ conduct credit.


On
appeal, defendant contends principles of equal
protection
entitle her to additional presentence conduct credit. Specifically, she claims the October 2011
amendment to section 4019 must be applied retroactively so that her
361 days’ custody credit entitle her to 361 days’ conduct
credit. We affirm.

>DISCUSSIONhref="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">[3]

Defendant
contends prospective application of section 4019, the conduct credit
provision of the Criminal Justice Realignment Act of 2011 (Stats. 2011,
ch. 15, § 482), violates equal protection principles. After defendant filed her opening brief, our
Supreme Court decided People v. Lara
(2012) 54 Cal.4th 896 (Lara), which
rejected defendant’s contention. (>Lara, supra, at p. 906, fn. 9.)


In
Lara, our Supreme Court explained its
rejection of the defendant’s equal protection argument as follows: “As we . . . explained [in >People v. Brown (2012)
54 Cal.4th 314, 328-330], ‘ “[t]he obvious purpose ” ’ of a law
increasing conduct credits ‘ “is to affect the behavior of inmates by
providing them with incentives to engage in productive work and maintain good
conduct while they are in prison.”
[Citation.] “[T]his incentive
purpose has no meaning if an inmate is unaware of it. The very concept demands prospective
application.” ’ (>Brown, at p. 329, quoting >In re Strick (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d
906, 913.) Accordingly, prisoners who
serve their pretrial detention before such a law’s effective date, and those
who serve their detention thereafter, are not similarly situated with respect
to the law’s purpose. (>Brown, at pp. 328-329.)” (Lara,
supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 906, fn. 9.)

Under
the equal protection analysis of Lara,
defendant is not entitled to additional presentence conduct credit.

>DISPOSITION

The
judgment is affirmed.









MURRAY , J.







We
concur:








RAYE
, P. J.







MAURO , J.





id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Undesignated statutory
references are to the Penal Code.

id=ftn2>

href="#_ftnref2"
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

id=ftn3>

href="#_ftnref3"
name="_ftn3" title="">[3] Because the facts of defendant’s offenses are not at issue, they
need not be set forth in this opinion.








Description In September 2011, defendant Michelle Sophia Walker pled no contest to two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a))[1] and admitted that she knew each victim was age 65 years or older (§ 667.9, subd. (a)). In exchange, 19 related counts were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.[2] Defendant was sentenced to prison for four years eight months and was awarded 361 days’ custody credit and 180 days’ conduct credit.
On appeal, defendant contends principles of equal protection entitle her to additional presentence conduct credit. Specifically, she claims the October 2011 amendment to section 4019 must be applied retroactively so that her 361 days’ custody credit entitle her to 361 days’ conduct credit. We affirm.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale